OK articles one by one
This is a good long article setting out some of the problems with the Danish study:
www.whale.to/a/bradstreet.html
All the Danish study reveals is that MMR is not a cause for all autism. Any idiot knows that. The "anti" mmr group suspect it may be involved in some way in about 10% of autism cases.
OK next the Finnish study. The Peltola work (he?s interesting as he is very pro vaccination but even he said he wasn?t convinced by meningitis C vaccine- anyway a digression). This one really is a bit of a joke as the authors tested the wrong hypothesis. For starters they only looked at general adverse reactions (the study was carried out before the Wakefield paper) and they only looked for acute reactions. Autism is not an acute reaction (especially if it takes years to get a dx) It?s a bit awkward that this study was actually part funded by Merck who manufacture the MMR.
Another link here:
www.garynull.com/Documents/AutismFinnishStudy.htm
Next the north London paper. This is Brent Taylors work. In fact this paper did find a steep increase in autism rates, around the time of the introduction of the MMR. It also found there was increased parental concern after 6 months- but said this was due to dx difficulties. The study missed out children who were included in the catch up campaign- this meant that it looked as though the increase in autism rates began before the introduction of the MMR- when in fact if you included these children it coincided.. In the conclusion of this paper the author s state that their work doesn?t rule out the possibility that a small group of children may be affected adversely by the MMR- this is what we should be trying to identify. We?re back to the same point as before- everyone knows its safe for the majority of children. That?s not the question being asked.
Next the GP consultation. Bit weird this one- no increase in consultations 6 months after the jab. Hmmm would anyone expect there to be? My GP has never referred me to anything to do w th autism. My HV referred me to SALT, We were referred to a paed by an ear nose and throat surgeon and by SALT. We didn?t go anywhere near the GP. I did a quick straw pole on this wth friends. And on an autism list Some went to their GP?s many didn?t.
Next the 200 children in Stafford and London. I;m not sure which paper this means. I think he means the chakrabati paper- although the children were not divided into 2 groups at all. It looked at pre and post MMR introduction rates ?w hich is slightly different. Anyway assuming it is this paper:They made a series of rather simplistic assumptions and basically went through each one refuting it. The problem with it is that their reasoning is flawed. So flawed I can?t be bothered to go through it., Good link here giving details though:
66.70.140.217/a/thrower.html#PART%20C
Next California. I?m guessing this was the 2001 paper. Again lots of problems- to be fair acknoweldeged in the paper. Buit it assumes a simple linear relationship between susceptibility and MMR which isn?t necessarily the case. The main problem here is that is was trumpeted as "proving" various things it didn?t.
I haven?t gone into all the problems with these papers as it would be too long. But hopefully the links will give you some idea that they don?t really prove much other than the MMR is safe for most children. Well yes it is. Which is fine providing your child is one of the most, and would be more reassuring if we had some ideas of the numbers involved. To answer the questions over MMR someone is going to have to look at the children concerned. One thing that has always struck me is that when MMR was introduced the vaccination schedule was changed and children were given thimerosil containing jabs at 2,3 and 4 months rather than over the course of the first year. Could this have an effect? Who knows?
Other problems I have with the article. Well he attacks Paul Shattock for not publishing his work, He hasn?t published yet because his data is kind of preliminary. Look what happened to Wakefield on publication of early data, I think the whole thing is too hot to handle. Anyway Shattock?s work is open to scrutiny here:
osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/aru.htm
He also buys into this whole "oh autism only becomes apparent at 18 months and the parents didn?t notice ? they?re only mother?s after all" Frankly this arrogant pile of claptrap is all too common. Signs of autism are there far earlier which can be seen on reflection. I was pretty certain by 4 months that ds2 was not autistic (using the insight I had gained with ds1- I knew what to look for- at 4 months ds2 copied me- autis don?t). At 15 months he passed the CHAT test which means that he certainly was showing no signs of autism then. DS1 on the other hand did show signs. He also regressed (helped along the way by illness and antibiotics) but he showed sensory problems from a fairly early age. I believe he was pushed further along the spectrum by his illness and the drugs, but he was showing risk signs as a baby. And this whole arrogance is something that myself and my friend?s come across regularly. I was told that I was imagining my son trying to talk and of course he didn?t have verbal dyspraxia ? a year later he was dxed with verbal dyspraxia. My friend took her daughter (with known kidney problems) to her dr because she was putting on weight and was worried she was retaining water due to kidney difficulties0- was told of course she wasn?t she was eating stuff without her mother knowing (although she is learning disabled and incapable of stealing food). A week later she was hospitalised, 6 weeks later she had a kidney scan- her right kidney isn?t working at all. Given my experiences I have no reason to doubt the mothers. They live with their child, I?m sure they are sane reasonable women capable of noticing major changes. Remember these mothers were not anti-vaccinators- they took their children to be vaccinated.
Whoops bit of a rant there. Anyway scientific summary of the MMR position is:
- its safe for the majority of children
- It may not be safe for some children